After reading the article I would like you to post your thoughts and comments to it here for us to read and discuss. I would like you to address the following items in your comments:
1. What is your general reaction to this article? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have questions or comments. Essentially, just react to the article.
Place your comments in the space below in alphabetical order (last name first) Feel free to comment on other people's comments but just be sure to use a different color font and sign your name after your comment(s).
Blank, Andrew
1. For the most part, I can agree with the concepts of this article. I have to say that "Fool Me Twice" is a very amusing title for the book for those of us who get it (it's misunderestimated). It seems those who wield power in the US have largely vacated any sort of scientific foundation for nearly all policy decisions. It is likely the consequence of a voting population that is largely unknowledgeable in many facets of science. This estrangement was highlighted in the article. Furthermore, because of landmark supreme court decisions (i.e. CU v. FEC), corporations have immense power to get their objectives in line with law by means of the unlimited funding of candidates who will do their bidding in congress. It is very obvious that this would mean significant damage to protective environmental regulations and similar safety measures.
Putting it simply, rejecting science has been a religious (mostly Christian) maxim for centuries. Those who use their religion to explain problems instead of science have suspended their critical thinking. This is because science is about creating new, better explanations for phenomena, while religion is very much static. The article is correct in its assertion that the eminence of science in policy where it might be needed is absent. Consider, not the problem of climate change, but just the problem of air quality. In the interest of promoting profit, clean-air regulations have not advanced in recent years. (http://cnnmon.ie/nFSb17) In the field of economics (which is a social science), several legislators do not consider economic models that work, listen to economists (who are educated in their fields), or contemplate evidence. It is indeed a compelling situation that should be addressed in terms of the public education (which is obviously government-funded, though not necessarily at a federal level, because real-estate taxes are largely directed to school districts) that is being provided and what sorts of people we elect to government: those who think critically or those who don't.
Bondy, Matthew
1.) I agreed with this article. One problem that I have with politics is that I feel sometimes policymakers use their beliefs to figure out which side of the science debateto be on and not the other way around. (That is, if they are aware of science at all.) This is an often ignored issue—that policymakers should be scientifically literate. It would be really interesting to hear republicans and democrats have a discussion about whether or not warming is anthropogenic and see who actually knows what they are talking about. Even if not everyone goes into a field that involves science, a certain amount of scientific understanding is certainly good—and especially policymakers who should be all-around knowledgeable.
Center, Shoshi 1) Although I agree with the article, I think that science should only be involved in the government to a certain degree. Science should only be used when dealing with issues that could use the knowledge of scientific studies to deal with things like global warming, oil crisis, etc. The government shouldn't be turning to science for political decisions and policies. But once again, the article is right: if science is helpful to solve a problem and there is scientific backup to prove that a given method should be used, the government should definitely not ignore it. Anything with scientific research that could help solve a problem in the government should always be considered.
Chin, Jeremy
1) I agree with the article for the most part. I do feel that the government should turn to the old values that it was created on like natural laws, etc. However, if the politics becomes too much like science, we would have a science-dominated government, which is not what was intended of our government. Basic laws of science should always be thought of when dealing with issues, but to make every issue science-based would not be logical. What should be done to fix this problem is to slightly lean towards the scientific method when solving problems. Have clear evidence that is scientifically sound, but don't get carried away talking about data and scientific laws. Politics is really a different world than science.
Coleman, Matt
1) This article brings up many good points that incorporate politics with science. I tend to agree with the main points of using science within the government, but there needs to be a boundary so that our government doesn't rely too heavily on science. I feel as though if anything can be proven (I stress proven because theories can cause controversy and wide-spread arguments) through science that can help develop our nation, then there is no reason not to use a particular scientific discovery in politics.
Crowe, Sam
1. From Otto’s view point, I can understand the need to further integrate scientific knowledge into the US government. With the use of scientific debates, the importance of a general understanding of science would not only spread to other politicians, but perhaps even the actual people. My only fear is that through these debates, politicians will stretch and twist scientific research/knowledge to their liking regardless of what they know, or even lie to the public about science. Therefore, I believe that if science and government become closer, it is crucial that there are extreme restrictions placed on the interpretations of science and repercussions for those who lie about it. Science shouldn’t become twisted like politics.
Dylan Ekenberg
1) My reaction to this article was that the government should rely heavily on science for the degree of discovery, safety, and protection. By using science, this will make it safer for us while expanding our knowledge. An example of this is developing NASA and with that we now have satellite surveillance like NORAD to protect us from any threats we have, making us safer. Also now we have many science discoveries from medicine, making our life expectancy increase.
Gruemmer, Nolan
1) I definitely agree with the author of this book for the most part. He makes pretty much undeniable statements on what is wrong with our society. However, I do think he is being a bit over dramatic in saying that we are becoming authoritarian. While I definitely think science and politics are (or should be) related, I would not go so far as to say that any degree of ignorance of science would directly lead to us becoming authoritarian.
Hill, Kim
1)I couldn't agree more with the author's assertion that policymakers are way too concerned with keeping their faith alive in Congress rather than examining scientific data. Many are completely ignorant and refuse to believe anything but their Bible could be correct. This ends up being a huge problem in our country and is actually against the basis of our nation. If policymakers are solely concerned with religion, then they are not separating church and state. I suppose this lacks a bright line because most people's morals have some sort of religious background. However, I also believe it is a voter's burden to choose governmental representatives that are going to look at all sides of a problem and create a solution based on facts and morals. Many voters choose the representative that have the same beliefs on minuscule agenda items and those who use enough jargon.
At the same time I also believe that many factors that should not be affecting policy decisions absolutely are. Things like lobbyists and Wall Street as well as religious belief all affect American citizens everyday. Politics are inherently flawed and it is our job as future voters and policy makers to change that.
I agree with part of Otto's solution. I believe the "science debates" would not only be educational for voters but also quite humorous. Eventually the policymakers would learn to separate their religious beliefs and the voters would hopefully learn something from the debates. I do not believe that we can force education on people, however. As long as there are those who drop out of high school at 16 or those who never attend college, there will never be a perfectly educated society.
Homedi, Nadia
1) For the most part, I do agree with this article. I agreed with Otto when he talked about the difficulty of defending certain beliefs without knowing/understanding the science behind them. I also agree that the public needs to be more educated about scientific topics in order to understand science or other events in our everyday lives. However, I found the article to be a little extreme. After reading it I felt that I was just repeatedly told the government must incorporate science to support all of its decisions and laws. Thus creating a completely science-based government, which I don’t think would work properly. There are some decisions that the government can make without scientific reasoning, and some of these decisions shouldn’t be made with it.
Jancaus, Kathryn
1. I mostly agreed with the book’s point that a better understanding of science would be good for American citizens and politicians. In order to make informed decisions and see how science-based policy issues fit into the bigger picture, it is crucial that politicians have their facts straight scientifically. For ordinary people, decisions can be influenced by opinions, morals, assumptions and fact. Because the people have power in our government, we are responsible for considering the fact too. One thing that made me think was Otto’s claim that “something has gone wrong… when those who are supposed to represent the public are not adequately informed about the science behind important issues yet continue to insist on their beliefs.” At first I was thinking just about our freedom to believe what we like in a democracy; that is a fundamental value of our country. Is this author saying that people need to challenge their morals or beliefs with science? But as I thought about it more, I found that this is exactly what the author encourages. Both on a small, everyday level and on a larger scale, people should know about science when deciding their beliefs because it is so important to our world. If they are going to reject science, they need to understand it fully first. And for many, beliefs are guided by scientific knowledge. That is why Otto says that leaders should be informed and scientifically aware before they insist upon their beliefs. If all politicians and citizens knew the science behind issues, I could see democracy working more smoothly for us: we would be unified in an understanding of the issues. People would still have their different opinions, but they would have the same background knowledge.
Kabelitz, Matthew
1) I do not agree with this article, because it intends to force two different things into a cohesive whole. I do not believe that the fusion of science and government would work very well. The job of educating the public about science belongs to the school systems, and the government should not be involved.* If the public is educated enough about science, they would not need the government to explain the science behind their policy decisions, they could figure it out for themselves. I also strongly disagree to the author's statement that we are becoming an authoritarian society. Just because science is not a concern of the government does not mean that we are losing our freedoms.
-You should know that public education is largely funded by real-estate taxes, and it is therefore a government program. This is why there is something known as the Department of Education. I highly suggest you read about it. ( http://www.ed.gov/ ) (Andrew Blank).
Kang, Edward
1) I do agree with this article. I feel that some people talk about scientific concepts as if they know what they are talking about. I feel that all this has led to a de-emphasis on science. The people of America seem to care about all of the other issues before science. Both of these things have caused the problem. It seems like people have simply stopped talking about global warming and just talk about getting votes nowadays. It isn't really fair but that's just how things are now, when a candidate does mention science the idea is vague and undeveloped.
Kaplan, Alex
1) I definitely agree with this article. I believe that a major problem in today's political world is the fact that politicians make decisions not based on facts and reason, but rather on what they believe the people want to hear. As the article said, this is esentially pseudoscientific. In this way, many incompetant lawmakers gain power when, from a scientific point of view, they most certainly should have none. The article brought up this great point and made me think about how reliable some people really are. In many cases, simple decisions can have major consequences if we do not put enough thinking into what we do. In order to overcome this scientific challenge, I believe that we as a nation need to embrace the scientific method, and we need to understand that science has many benefits as well. Certainly the atomic bomb and warfare technology have hindered many people's technological ambitions, but overcoming this fear of science is necessary to creating a logical community.
Kerstein, Arin
1) I found this article very interesting because it addressed a topic that I have not really thought about much in the past. I agree with the article because along with myself, I know many educated adults that look past this issue of the lack of scientific basis in government actions when science is clearly crucial to understanding. Having these scientific debates written about in the article would promote the public to educate themselves to understand the basis of where their politicians are coming from. Thus, the public will better understand the clear connections between science and some government policies, and will be able to form their own opinions. This these opinions based on new knowledge, the public will better elect officials who actually know what they're talking about.
Knez, Natalie
1) I think the most important point in this article is ignorance. Though the American population is ignorant about pretty much everything, instances such as these are where we see it really become an issue. It can go two ways --- either a. we deny that problems are problems are problems or b. we create problems out of nothing. I think global warming is a fantastic example of this. Though most of us think it's real and caused by humans, after reading through the literature, a lot of research goes the other way. Not to say that warming is or is not real, the point is simply that we seem to take in the argument surrounded by the most hype and consider it true.
Kriska, Jeremy
1) I agree with the problem, there are many uninformed political decisions regarding science that should not be happening and it is a problem that needs to be fixed. Despite that, I disagree with the solution; the problems with the solution that I first thought of were the same as the ones mentioned by the author of the review. Even if science was debated, it is not likely that most people would understand it. In fact, the majority of people that understand the debates would most likely be the people intelligent enough in science to have made their own conclusions. In addition to that, I would agree to what most politicians might argue that they don’t have the time to become intelligent enough in each scientific cause to have whole debates about them. So perhaps, an alternate solution would be to hire scientists as part of their campaign groups. There are also problems with this solution, such as the scientists giving biased results.
Matlin, Ethan
1) I agree. Today’s politicians have abandoned science for other things, whether it is pseudoscience, religion, personal well-being, fear, or something else. The Electoral College was originally created because politicians believed that commoners couldn’t be trusted to make educated and good decisions when voting; they thought the Electoral College, made up of educated people, would solve this problem. The Electoral College no longer exists for that reason, but a new problem has arisen: the politicians themselves are often uneducated. Today’s politics have devolved more into fear-mongering and “non-science” than anything else. We have seen a resurgence of the religious right and while religion plays an important role in many people’s lives, it does not belong in the public political sphere; science is the only way to guarantee the best policy for the most people. Their philosophies may be correct and good, but not for the government; that is where science belongs. The reason politicians who believe evolution is a hoax could even possibly be elected is the absence of knowledge otherwise by the American public. If we don’t know the truth for ourselves, then where are we to not listen to and support those who say things any educated person would know to be false? And how close does that brink us to authoritarianism? If we are ignorant, what will stop the next dictator from taking power without our knowing?
Muldoon, Tommy
1) This article shows exactly how I think the government today should be handled. Government in America seems to all be focused on how to be re-elected. Instead trying to do what is "right" or what is best for the nation, politicians seem mostly concerned with pleasing the people as a whole, riding off of the mood of the nation, whether or not it is for the best. I would think that having a more scientific outlook on government would lead to logical, scientific decision making by the politicians. The article mentioned the use of the scientific method in congress. I would agree that a slightly modified method would be very fitting for government. But the poor education of American citizens is the source of the problem. If the people are uneducated, not only will they not understand the decisions the government makes, but the would probably avoid electing the educated candidate in the first place. Today, it is easy to see that some Americans will go with whatever candidate that uses their current emotions as opposed to "scientifically" evaluating all candidates.
Niemann, Josef
1) I believe that this article is interesting in the way how it criticizes the government for making decisions that are based on what they know when they do not fully understand the sciences behind the situation. However, I haven't thought about this or researched how policy makers make decisions so I wouldn't have knowledge about this topic myself. I find this article to have good information on explaining policy makers now to past policy makers and their decisions.
Simone, Josh
1) I do understand the author's frustration as he tries to alarm the public about how much we take science for granted. However, I don't see holding science debates can really change things that much. I also think that if the the whole argument is about how illiterate Americans are with science, writing a book is not the best way to grab these peoples' attention. They already don't care about the impact of science or the reasoning behind it, so it is unlikely they take the time to read this book. I also feel that part of the reason science is so under appreciated is because of the impact of religion in our country and the majority of the people will always choose religion over science.
Steinberg, Ross E.
1) I agree with the article in that the general populace's ignorance with regard to science is alarming. However, I feel that the solution of having politicians talk science is addressing a symptom of ignorance, not a root cause. What should be done to fix scientific ignorance is a revamp of our educational system; people should be sufficient enough in science by the time they graduate high-school so that they can tell the difference between political rhetoric and actual facts.
(Some of the basic problems in high school science education are outlined in this article for anyone curious: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050809065445.htm) I would also like to say that squabbling in politics over things that should be taken as fact only take away from time that could be spent tackling hugely important issues, such as jobs.
Wagner, Jonny
1) After reading this article, I can agree that the government should do more to incorporate itself more with sciences. That being said, it shouldn't spend too much time on science because there are other more important issues that need to be solved such as our debt crisis. Some of our issues can be tied with science such as the health care debate, which if cheaper more efficient technology was used it could cost a lot less for healthcare. Going back to the article, I agree with the idea of trying to place science in political discussions of policies that affect the public which "'allows them to become familiar with science and knowledge-based argumentation'". This means that both the public and the politicians can understand more about the science's importance in life.
For the Democracy of Science
Instructions
After reading the article I would like you to post your thoughts and comments to it here for us to read and discuss. I would like you to address the following items in your comments:
1. What is your general reaction to this article? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have questions or comments. Essentially, just react to the article.
Place your comments in the space below in alphabetical order (last name first) Feel free to comment on other people's comments but just be sure to use a different color font and sign your name after your comment(s).
Blank, Andrew
1. For the most part, I can agree with the concepts of this article. I have to say that "Fool Me Twice" is a very amusing title for the book for those of us who get it (it's misunderestimated). It seems those who wield power in the US have largely vacated any sort of scientific foundation for nearly all policy decisions. It is likely the consequence of a voting population that is largely unknowledgeable in many facets of science. This estrangement was highlighted in the article. Furthermore, because of landmark supreme court decisions (i.e. CU v. FEC), corporations have immense power to get their objectives in line with law by means of the unlimited funding of candidates who will do their bidding in congress. It is very obvious that this would mean significant damage to protective environmental regulations and similar safety measures.
Putting it simply, rejecting science has been a religious (mostly Christian) maxim for centuries. Those who use their religion to explain problems instead of science have suspended their critical thinking. This is because science is about creating new, better explanations for phenomena, while religion is very much static. The article is correct in its assertion that the eminence of science in policy where it might be needed is absent. Consider, not the problem of climate change, but just the problem of air quality. In the interest of promoting profit, clean-air regulations have not advanced in recent years. (http://cnnmon.ie/nFSb17) In the field of economics (which is a social science), several legislators do not consider economic models that work, listen to economists (who are educated in their fields), or contemplate evidence. It is indeed a compelling situation that should be addressed in terms of the public education (which is obviously government-funded, though not necessarily at a federal level, because real-estate taxes are largely directed to school districts) that is being provided and what sorts of people we elect to government: those who think critically or those who don't.
Bondy, Matthew
1.) I agreed with this article. One problem that I have with politics is that I feel sometimes policymakers use their beliefs to figure out which side of the science debateto be on and not the other way around. (That is, if they are aware of science at all.) This is an often ignored issue—that policymakers should be scientifically literate. It would be really interesting to hear republicans and democrats have a discussion about whether or not warming is anthropogenic and see who actually knows what they are talking about. Even if not everyone goes into a field that involves science, a certain amount of scientific understanding is certainly good—and especially policymakers who should be all-around knowledgeable.
Center, Shoshi
1) Although I agree with the article, I think that science should only be involved in the government to a certain degree. Science should only be used when dealing with issues that could use the knowledge of scientific studies to deal with things like global warming, oil crisis, etc. The government shouldn't be turning to science for political decisions and policies. But once again, the article is right: if science is helpful to solve a problem and there is scientific backup to prove that a given method should be used, the government should definitely not ignore it. Anything with scientific research that could help solve a problem in the government should always be considered.
Chin, Jeremy
1) I agree with the article for the most part. I do feel that the government should turn to the old values that it was created on like natural laws, etc. However, if the politics becomes too much like science, we would have a science-dominated government, which is not what was intended of our government. Basic laws of science should always be thought of when dealing with issues, but to make every issue science-based would not be logical. What should be done to fix this problem is to slightly lean towards the scientific method when solving problems. Have clear evidence that is scientifically sound, but don't get carried away talking about data and scientific laws. Politics is really a different world than science.
Coleman, Matt
1) This article brings up many good points that incorporate politics with science. I tend to agree with the main points of using science within the government, but there needs to be a boundary so that our government doesn't rely too heavily on science. I feel as though if anything can be proven (I stress proven because theories can cause controversy and wide-spread arguments) through science that can help develop our nation, then there is no reason not to use a particular scientific discovery in politics.
Crowe, Sam
1. From Otto’s view point, I can understand the need to further integrate scientific knowledge into the US government. With the use of scientific debates, the importance of a general understanding of science would not only spread to other politicians, but perhaps even the actual people. My only fear is that through these debates, politicians will stretch and twist scientific research/knowledge to their liking regardless of what they know, or even lie to the public about science. Therefore, I believe that if science and government become closer, it is crucial that there are extreme restrictions placed on the interpretations of science and repercussions for those who lie about it. Science shouldn’t become twisted like politics.
Dylan Ekenberg
1) My reaction to this article was that the government should rely heavily on science for the degree of discovery, safety, and protection. By using science, this will make it safer for us while expanding our knowledge. An example of this is developing NASA and with that we now have satellite surveillance like NORAD to protect us from any threats we have, making us safer. Also now we have many science discoveries from medicine, making our life expectancy increase.
Gruemmer, Nolan
1) I definitely agree with the author of this book for the most part. He makes pretty much undeniable statements on what is wrong with our society. However, I do think he is being a bit over dramatic in saying that we are becoming authoritarian. While I definitely think science and politics are (or should be) related, I would not go so far as to say that any degree of ignorance of science would directly lead to us becoming authoritarian.
Hill, Kim
1)I couldn't agree more with the author's assertion that policymakers are way too concerned with keeping their faith alive in Congress rather than examining scientific data. Many are completely ignorant and refuse to believe anything but their Bible could be correct. This ends up being a huge problem in our country and is actually against the basis of our nation. If policymakers are solely concerned with religion, then they are not separating church and state. I suppose this lacks a bright line because most people's morals have some sort of religious background. However, I also believe it is a voter's burden to choose governmental representatives that are going to look at all sides of a problem and create a solution based on facts and morals. Many voters choose the representative that have the same beliefs on minuscule agenda items and those who use enough jargon.
At the same time I also believe that many factors that should not be affecting policy decisions absolutely are. Things like lobbyists and Wall Street as well as religious belief all affect American citizens everyday. Politics are inherently flawed and it is our job as future voters and policy makers to change that.
I agree with part of Otto's solution. I believe the "science debates" would not only be educational for voters but also quite humorous. Eventually the policymakers would learn to separate their religious beliefs and the voters would hopefully learn something from the debates. I do not believe that we can force education on people, however. As long as there are those who drop out of high school at 16 or those who never attend college, there will never be a perfectly educated society.
Homedi, Nadia
1) For the most part, I do agree with this article. I agreed with Otto when he talked about the difficulty of defending certain beliefs without knowing/understanding the science behind them. I also agree that the public needs to be more educated about scientific topics in order to understand science or other events in our everyday lives. However, I found the article to be a little extreme. After reading it I felt that I was just repeatedly told the government must incorporate science to support all of its decisions and laws. Thus creating a completely science-based government, which I don’t think would work properly. There are some decisions that the government can make without scientific reasoning, and some of these decisions shouldn’t be made with it.
Jancaus, Kathryn
1. I mostly agreed with the book’s point that a better understanding of science would be good for American citizens and politicians. In order to make informed decisions and see how science-based policy issues fit into the bigger picture, it is crucial that politicians have their facts straight scientifically. For ordinary people, decisions can be influenced by opinions, morals, assumptions and fact. Because the people have power in our government, we are responsible for considering the fact too. One thing that made me think was Otto’s claim that “something has gone wrong… when those who are supposed to represent the public are not adequately informed about the science behind important issues yet continue to insist on their beliefs.” At first I was thinking just about our freedom to believe what we like in a democracy; that is a fundamental value of our country. Is this author saying that people need to challenge their morals or beliefs with science? But as I thought about it more, I found that this is exactly what the author encourages. Both on a small, everyday level and on a larger scale, people should know about science when deciding their beliefs because it is so important to our world. If they are going to reject science, they need to understand it fully first. And for many, beliefs are guided by scientific knowledge. That is why Otto says that leaders should be informed and scientifically aware before they insist upon their beliefs. If all politicians and citizens knew the science behind issues, I could see democracy working more smoothly for us: we would be unified in an understanding of the issues. People would still have their different opinions, but they would have the same background knowledge.
Kabelitz, Matthew
1) I do not agree with this article, because it intends to force two different things into a cohesive whole. I do not believe that the fusion of science and government would work very well. The job of educating the public about science belongs to the school systems, and the government should not be involved.* If the public is educated enough about science, they would not need the government to explain the science behind their policy decisions, they could figure it out for themselves. I also strongly disagree to the author's statement that we are becoming an authoritarian society. Just because science is not a concern of the government does not mean that we are losing our freedoms.
-You should know that public education is largely funded by real-estate taxes, and it is therefore a government program. This is why there is something known as the Department of Education. I highly suggest you read about it. ( http://www.ed.gov/ ) (Andrew Blank).
Kang, Edward
1) I do agree with this article. I feel that some people talk about scientific concepts as if they know what they are talking about. I feel that all this has led to a de-emphasis on science. The people of America seem to care about all of the other issues before science. Both of these things have caused the problem. It seems like people have simply stopped talking about global warming and just talk about getting votes nowadays. It isn't really fair but that's just how things are now, when a candidate does mention science the idea is vague and undeveloped.
Kaplan, Alex
1) I definitely agree with this article. I believe that a major problem in today's political world is the fact that politicians make decisions not based on facts and reason, but rather on what they believe the people want to hear. As the article said, this is esentially pseudoscientific. In this way, many incompetant lawmakers gain power when, from a scientific point of view, they most certainly should have none. The article brought up this great point and made me think about how reliable some people really are. In many cases, simple decisions can have major consequences if we do not put enough thinking into what we do. In order to overcome this scientific challenge, I believe that we as a nation need to embrace the scientific method, and we need to understand that science has many benefits as well. Certainly the atomic bomb and warfare technology have hindered many people's technological ambitions, but overcoming this fear of science is necessary to creating a logical community.
Kerstein, Arin
1) I found this article very interesting because it addressed a topic that I have not really thought about much in the past. I agree with the article because along with myself, I know many educated adults that look past this issue of the lack of scientific basis in government actions when science is clearly crucial to understanding. Having these scientific debates written about in the article would promote the public to educate themselves to understand the basis of where their politicians are coming from. Thus, the public will better understand the clear connections between science and some government policies, and will be able to form their own opinions. This these opinions based on new knowledge, the public will better elect officials who actually know what they're talking about.
Knez, Natalie
1) I think the most important point in this article is ignorance. Though the American population is ignorant about pretty much everything, instances such as these are where we see it really become an issue. It can go two ways --- either a. we deny that problems are problems are problems or b. we create problems out of nothing. I think global warming is a fantastic example of this. Though most of us think it's real and caused by humans, after reading through the literature, a lot of research goes the other way. Not to say that warming is or is not real, the point is simply that we seem to take in the argument surrounded by the most hype and consider it true.
Kriska, Jeremy
1) I agree with the problem, there are many uninformed political decisions regarding science that should not be happening and it is a problem that needs to be fixed. Despite that, I disagree with the solution; the problems with the solution that I first thought of were the same as the ones mentioned by the author of the review. Even if science was debated, it is not likely that most people would understand it. In fact, the majority of people that understand the debates would most likely be the people intelligent enough in science to have made their own conclusions. In addition to that, I would agree to what most politicians might argue that they don’t have the time to become intelligent enough in each scientific cause to have whole debates about them. So perhaps, an alternate solution would be to hire scientists as part of their campaign groups. There are also problems with this solution, such as the scientists giving biased results.
Matlin, Ethan
1) I agree. Today’s politicians have abandoned science for other things, whether it is pseudoscience, religion, personal well-being, fear, or something else. The Electoral College was originally created because politicians believed that commoners couldn’t be trusted to make educated and good decisions when voting; they thought the Electoral College, made up of educated people, would solve this problem. The Electoral College no longer exists for that reason, but a new problem has arisen: the politicians themselves are often uneducated. Today’s politics have devolved more into fear-mongering and “non-science” than anything else. We have seen a resurgence of the religious right and while religion plays an important role in many people’s lives, it does not belong in the public political sphere; science is the only way to guarantee the best policy for the most people. Their philosophies may be correct and good, but not for the government; that is where science belongs. The reason politicians who believe evolution is a hoax could even possibly be elected is the absence of knowledge otherwise by the American public. If we don’t know the truth for ourselves, then where are we to not listen to and support those who say things any educated person would know to be false? And how close does that brink us to authoritarianism? If we are ignorant, what will stop the next dictator from taking power without our knowing?
Muldoon, Tommy
1) This article shows exactly how I think the government today should be handled. Government in America seems to all be focused on how to be re-elected. Instead trying to do what is "right" or what is best for the nation, politicians seem mostly concerned with pleasing the people as a whole, riding off of the mood of the nation, whether or not it is for the best. I would think that having a more scientific outlook on government would lead to logical, scientific decision making by the politicians. The article mentioned the use of the scientific method in congress. I would agree that a slightly modified method would be very fitting for government. But the poor education of American citizens is the source of the problem. If the people are uneducated, not only will they not understand the decisions the government makes, but the would probably avoid electing the educated candidate in the first place. Today, it is easy to see that some Americans will go with whatever candidate that uses their current emotions as opposed to "scientifically" evaluating all candidates.
Niemann, Josef
1) I believe that this article is interesting in the way how it criticizes the government for making decisions that are based on what they know when they do not fully understand the sciences behind the situation. However, I haven't thought about this or researched how policy makers make decisions so I wouldn't have knowledge about this topic myself. I find this article to have good information on explaining policy makers now to past policy makers and their decisions.
Simone, Josh
1) I do understand the author's frustration as he tries to alarm the public about how much we take science for granted. However, I don't see holding science debates can really change things that much. I also think that if the the whole argument is about how illiterate Americans are with science, writing a book is not the best way to grab these peoples' attention. They already don't care about the impact of science or the reasoning behind it, so it is unlikely they take the time to read this book. I also feel that part of the reason science is so under appreciated is because of the impact of religion in our country and the majority of the people will always choose religion over science.
Steinberg, Ross E.
1) I agree with the article in that the general populace's ignorance with regard to science is alarming. However, I feel that the solution of having politicians talk science is addressing a symptom of ignorance, not a root cause. What should be done to fix scientific ignorance is a revamp of our educational system; people should be sufficient enough in science by the time they graduate high-school so that they can tell the difference between political rhetoric and actual facts.
(Some of the basic problems in high school science education are outlined in this article for anyone curious: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050809065445.htm) I would also like to say that squabbling in politics over things that should be taken as fact only take away from time that could be spent tackling hugely important issues, such as jobs.
Wagner, Jonny
1) After reading this article, I can agree that the government should do more to incorporate itself more with sciences. That being said, it shouldn't spend too much time on science because there are other more important issues that need to be solved such as our debt crisis. Some of our issues can be tied with science such as the health care debate, which if cheaper more efficient technology was used it could cost a lot less for healthcare. Going back to the article, I agree with the idea of trying to place science in political discussions of policies that affect the public which "'allows them to become familiar with science and knowledge-based argumentation'". This means that both the public and the politicians can understand more about the science's importance in life.